Truth sometimes revealed in surprising places

In Chicago the evening of 31 January 2002 Mark Bruzonsky, Publisher of MER (Middle East Review), gave the keynote address at the University of Chicago Model United Nations. The Palmer House Hilton Ballroom was full with more than 2500 persons for the opening session -- standing room only. For the first time in the history of the keynote talks at this annual event the speaker received a prolonged standing ovation. "This has never happened before," said the conference organizer. The speech by Mark Bruzonsky follows:

You young people in this room are about to inherit a very dangerous, potentially chaotic world. Most of you are Americans, citizens of the most advanced, the most privileged country. And those privileges, coupled with your own interest in world affairs and the United Nations, bring with them new and extraordinary responsibilities. Thank you sincerely for this invitation to speak with you this evening as you begin what I am sure will be a tremendously educational experience at this very special University of Chicago Model United Nations. Thank you especially as I am well aware my name is not Mary Robinson, or Ramsey Clark, or Ralph Nader, and that few of you may have heard my name before this evening. Indeed, in past years usually persons working for or with the U.N. in one way or another have spoken to this forum. And they have usually focused on the U.N. system itself, human rights issues, and very frankly matters not very controversial; some might even say "safe." But in many ways, including psychologically, the world of the roaring 90s -- which is all most of you have directly experienced in your own lives until lately -- also crashed on 11 Sept. And I expect there are other crashes of various kinds now ahead of us all -- political and economic, as well as military.

There are real and serious reasons our world is in such turmoil and danger today. There are real and serious reasons there are "suicide bombers" in that great city which represents the focal point of most of our religious faiths -- Jerusalem, a marvelous and unique city where I have spent much time. There are real and serious reasons young people your age in other places are choosing to become what Americans call "terrorists" and what they themselves call "martyrs" and "freedom fighters." And there are real reasons, real grievances, real and profound struggles, which lie behind 911. For we are not in a new war at all. Rather we are in a new phase of an ongoing war in which millions of people in far away countries have already been killed, in many cases by policies and forces and allies of our own country. And so, it is with these responsibilities and this new situation in mind that I have chosen to diverge from the "safe" subjects and deal with issues that will be crucial for your futures, and for our country's future, and for our entire world's future.

This evening I want to speak with you not about general human rights but about specific political and economic rights; not about the successes of the United Nations but about its failures and the great challenges it now faces. And most of all I want to speak with you about the subject I personally know best and first-hand from over 150 visits to the Middle East region and 30 years of conferences and relationships since I was a student like you -- about the "Middle East Peace Process" and why it has exploded in an orgy of even greater violence and despair than when it began.

Most of the human rights problems in our world really have deep political, economic and territorial roots. Basis issues of power and wealth are involved, both at the national and international level. How we structure our society, and who is really in control and why, are the truly crucial issues too often not truly discussed. The most challenging and basic issue of all is how our world's resources are owned and controlled and distributed, because this is what determines crucial things like how people are fed and clothed and housed; how people receive, and in most cases do not receive, health care; how people are able, or unable, to provide for themselves and their families and their futures. And sadly, unlike for us who are so privileged, the majority of humans on planet earth 21st century are in miserable and desperate circumstances.

In the wake of World War II the victorious powers created the United Nations, just as they had created the League of Nations after the previous "War To End Wars," then renamed World War I. The U.N. quickly became a world forum that in one way or another had to be. But it did not have to evolve as it has. For today's U.N. has not lived up to either the dream or the promise of its founders. Most of all it has not fulfilled its primary responsibility to achieve the kind of independence, credibility, and assertiveness on behalf of the people on Planet Earth, rather than on behalf of those most powerful and wealthy. There have been far too many major Security Council and General Assembly resolutions that have gone unheeded, unenforced, in many cases unremembered. The major powers, especially the United States, have manipulated and cowered the U.N. far more than should have been either allowed or tolerated.

There is a terrible misdistribution of wealth on our planet, leaving the majority of human beings in poverty and despair -- the U.N. should by now have far more seriously addressed this major dilemma in far more assertive and potent ways. There is an unprecedented environmental catastrophe looming. Projections from U.N. bodies warn that in the lifetime of most in this room our planet could experience unprecedented environmental change including as much as a 10 degree temperature rise leading to calamity on a tremendous scale. The international arms race is terribly out of control, propelled in fact by the very powers in charge of the U.N. through the Security Council -- an international military-industrial complex is fueling future warfare and potential Armageddon. And even if these terrible weapons of mass annihilation are controlled and never actually used, humankind is squandering the best of its talent and wealth building ever new generations of evermore frightful weapons; rather than schools and hospitals and food for all.
Nor has the U.N. and its many agencies properly prepared to seriously fight international disease and starvation -- two plagues now ravaging the African continent and threatening much of humanity.

By now you may have realized that I have not included any jokes or one-liners to enliven my talk with you this evening. Frankly, the situation we are all now in is simply too dangerous and too tragic for jokes or for pointing fingers at individual political personalities. What we need urgently to do is to focus our greatest attention on the big political and economic issues and institutions -- and to find ways to restructure and manage them for the common good. That in fact was the original United Nations vision and dream.(*) That is what you are challenged to be discussing, debating, and learning from each other about for the next three very intense days. We need to focus on resuscitating a United Nations which itself is in a difficult predicament desperately needing to find a way to be independent and potent. Though it is an organization of member states it is urgently important it also become a far more democratic forum, and thus a far more respected forum, representing the peoples of our world, not just their often corrupt and self-serving, repressive and deceptive governments.
Very frankly, the world's only superpower has done far too much controlling, manipulating, and badgering. And when it doesn't get its way far too much vetoing.

Just a few months ago, before 911, the U.S. was nearly totally isolated at the important U.N. gathering in Durban, South Africa -- blustering and bullying everyone nearly about everything relating to history, racism, and basic economic and political rights. And since 911 the U.S. has once again vetoed a Security Council resolution rightly seeking to provide some protection for the Palestinian people, whom it declared way back in 1947 should have a state of their own immediately. Indeed, let me turn directly now to that most controversial of issues, the one the U.N. itself midwifed, and the one the U.N. has spent more time and energy and anguish dealing with than any other. Of course I am referring to the situation in what many still call "The Holy Land," the area that was Palestine until 1947, the area now called Israel and the "occupied territories." It is this very region which also has given birth to modern-day "terrorism," to airplane hijacking, suicide bombings, truck bombs, and political kidnapping. And today, because of the past wrongs for which the United Nations and the United States are considerably responsible, it is now more fractured and divided and blood-soaked than it has been since Biblical days and then the period of the Crusades.
But that was a world of swords and crucifixions. Ours is a world of nuclear and biological bombs.

Many of you may find what I will now outline troubling. Many of you, young Americans, will wonder how can what he is saying be true in view of what is usually said about these issues in the popular mass media in our country. Indeed, I still remember when I was in graduate school how upset and disbelieving I was when Professor Richard Falk of Princeton first used such concepts as "racism," "war crimes," and "apartheid" when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict. Then I was a student like you are today. Then I had not yet had a chance to travel the world, meet so many new people, hear so many new views, and ponder these great issues for myself. Now, more than 25 years later, when I have personally been so lucky to have had such opportunities, what I have to try to do is squeeze these 25 years into less than 25 minutes. All I can realistically do in the next few moments is share with you my own conclusions; and then encourage you to start reaching your own. And in fact in just a few minutes when I have finished, I encourage you to start with the most difficult and important questions you can come up with to ask of me.

Today the situation in the Middle East is immensely worse than when I represented the International Student Movement for the United Nations at U.N. Headquarters for three years. It has been made worse precisely by the "Middle East Peace Process." And the basic reason is that all along rather than a true peace process it has been, and it is, a domination and subjugation and repression process -- and we have all been taken for a ride!
Let me try to explain in the following way: If you had invited any of the following much more distinguished speakers, most of whom I am fortunate to have as personal friends, here is what they would have told you about the realities of the "Middle East 'Peace Process' ":
If you had invited Prof. Edward Said: "There is a wanton murder of language evident in the phrase 'peace process' -- at a time when people are suffering and shabby leaders are reaping Nobel Prizes that only enable more exploitation, it is crucial to bear witness to the truth: Far from bringing peace (the agreement) will bring greater suffering for Palestinians and an assured threat to the Israeli people. …"
If you had invited Dr. Eyad Sarraj -- Dr. Sarraj, a distinguished Palestinian, who has his Ph D. in psychology from Harvard by the way, made these remarks at a Georgetown University forum: "We are not against the rule of law, in fact we want the rule of law. We want fairness and equality before the law. We want to feel that the people have rights, and they are dignified; after so many years of brutality and repression and humiliation at the hands of the Israelis. This is what the people here are longing for -- dignity, and pride."
Dr. Sarraj wrote an important essay titled "Why We Have All Become Suicide Bombers" five years ago now. It was widely published throughout the world, except in the US. In it Dr. Sarraj wrote: "... the struggle of Palestinians today is how not to become a bomb and the amazing thing is not the occurrence of the suicide bombing, rather the rarity of them."…
If you had invited Professor Charles Black -- one of America's most respected scholars of Constitution and International Law, who taught his entire career at the Yale University Law School. And yes, here too, no one would publish these views in the USA, the first time in his life Professor Black could not find a publisher for his essay about the U.S., Israel, and the Palestinians: "They are imprisoned under obscene conditions, after kangaroo trials, or no trials at all. They are regularly shot at; enough of them are killed to make death ever-present. Many are maimed; many are disfigured for life. Yet they come out in the streets again and again, these young people. What name shall we give to the trait of character that produces conduct like that? Why do you hesitate? You know what the word is. Do you hesitate because that word just never happens to be spoken in America in application to these young Palestinian people? Or is it because you fear that a revolution in your thought and feeling will have to follow your pronouncing the word? Well you're very likely right about that last. That makes you nervous? So let me help you. I'll start things off by saying the word for you the first time. The word is 'courage.'"

And finally, although I could go on and on in this vein, had you invited Arundhati Roy -- winner of India's most prestigious literary prize -- and again published throughout the world, except in the US. Here she is writing about the World Trade Tower/ Pentagon attacks: "Could it be that the anger that led to the attacks has its taproot not in American freedom and democracy, but in the US government's record of commitment and support to exactly the opposite things -- to military and economic terrorism, insurgency, military dictatorship, religious bigotry and unimaginable genocide (outside America)?

"Now Bush and Bin Laden have even begun to borrow each other's rhetoric. Each refers to the other as 'the head of the snake.' Both invoke God and use the loose millenarian currency of good and evil as their terms of reference. Both are engaged in unequivocal political crimes. Both are dangerously armed -- one with the nuclear arsenal of the obscenely powerful, the other with the incandescent, destructive power of the utterly hopeless. The important thing to keep in mind is that neither is an acceptable alternative to the other. "With all due respect to President Bush, the people of the world do not have to choose between the Taliban and the U.S. government. All the beauty of human civilization -- our art, our music, our literature -- lies beyond these two fundamentalist, ideological poles. There is as little chance that the people of the world can all become middle-class consumers as there is that they will all embrace any one particular religion. The issue is not about good v. evil or Islam v. Christianity as much as it is about space. About how to accommodate diversity, how to contain the impulse towards hegemony -- every kind of hegemony, economic, military, linguistic, religious and cultural." ...

COMMENT (by R.G.): Unfortunately, space constraints have forced us to delete significant and revealing quotations by outstanding world authorities such as Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, and Haidar Abdul-shafi, and a poem titled "We Shoot Children, Too, Don't We," by Israel's very well known and respected playwright and television host, Dan Almagor. However, this address by Mark Bruzonsky, demonstrates that in the U.S.A., despite its government's 'hell-bent for war' policy, courageous Americans are still able to address large audiences in major universities, and lay the 'politically incorrect' Truth on the line. Such an outstanding speaker as Mr. Bruzonsky would probably be banned by our Canadian Immigration thought police. (*) When we talk about the U.N.'s not living up to its 'dream and promise,' what Americans and others usually mean is the hope of a world of peace and rising living standards internationally. But inasmuch as the architects of the U.N. were -- from the USA at least -- largely secret Communist agents such as Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and a host of their agents who had for years been infiltrating and working into high levels of the Roosevelt administration in Washington. As a result, one of the early accomplishments of the U.N. was to play a key role in establishing and legitimizing the Israeli invasion of Palestine. Hardly a work of peace and prosperity for the victims! -R.G.

On Target Section

Increasing demand for meaningful reform

Many Canadians, especially since the last federal election, are becoming discouraged, even hopeless, respecting needed political reform and the future of our country. It's a time for serious concern., yes; but no time to give up or abdicate citizenship responsibilities. Actually, there is a stirring in our land and an increasingly wide agreement on the urgent need for significant and meaningful political and economic reform in our country. The following two items attest to this fact.

Political Gong Show

Following, is a letter which Neil Wilson, an Alberta rancher and businessman, and also chairman of The Canadian Constitution Committee, is sending to weekly newspapers: The game of central politics has overcome the traditional purpose of government. Today we watch in glorious expectation for one side to conquer the other Leadership campaigns, cabinet shuffles, opposition insistent on public inquiries, and the like, have reduced government to a spectator sport where we as citizens can only root for the lesser of evils. Our election process provides players to an arena of political mud wrestling, buying their fans by using the avails of the public largess. The recent purpose of government is not to provide governing service, but has become a supply source for the media to give a blow-by-blow account of political wrangling, thereby forwarding the ruse that there is much being accomplished.
We, involved in the agricultural industry, refer to similar situations by the term "Gong Show." We have no means to end this charade other than to replace the players every few years, but it is this reluctant spectator's view that Canadians must acquire the means to remove the participants at any time when government representation and objectivity is compromised.

While government is bogged in perpetual lunacy, we as citizens have lost much to an unaccountable, agenda-driven bureaucracy bent on appeasing the globalists that have designs upon the sovereignty of Canada (if it still exists), its resources and the most basic rights of the Canadian individual. How might we gain control of our government when we have minimal control over personal property? How might we strengthen this nation when our political system is fashioned to fulfill the aspirations of individuals seeking their own menial agenda, rather than upholding the principles that founded and inspired the making of this country? We must refer to the intent of the founding principles of this country and their source of inspiration.

The Constitution Act of 1867 would be a very good starting point. It is there we will find the definitions of public representation. How might we force our elected officials at the central level to adhere to those definitions? We must, as citizenry, entrench in statute law, a provision to remove those who choose not to represent the electorate? The Canadian Constitution Committee, comprised of people from across Canada, has formulated a proposal to do just that. It is the intent of this committee to continue to inform those who dare to share similar concerns and offer real and viable alternative. Their work can be viewed at website www.constitutioncanada.com I am privileged to be part of this committee and its work. Further inquiries can be made directly to me at Box 834, Nanton, Alberta. TOL 1RO. Or bmwilson@telusplanet.net (Signed) Neil E. Wilson, (403) 646-3088

An Interesting Letter

Mr. Neil Wilson and his Constitution Committee don't confine their letter-writing and contacts to weekly and daily newspapers. Our attention has been brought to the following letter dated March 4, 2002, on the letterhead of The Canadian Constitution Committee, addressed to Her Excellency, Madame Lois Hole Lieutenant-Governor of Alberta:
"Dear Lieutenant-Governor: "I feel a bit awkward addressing a station of such distinction. But it is with grave and desperate concern for the sovereignty of this nation and province that I do so. The page documents enclosed have come across my desk recently, and it is apparent that these people feel so completely disenfranchised with the current political posture of this nation, that some are willing to disregard and demolish our inherited Westminster style of Government. "I am cognizant of the constitutional duties associated with Your Office, and indeed the office of the Governor-General. It does raise concern when I witness the erosion of the authority of your Post. As protectorate of the citizenry and the Constitution against oppressive government, you must find much frustration in the knowledge that the activity of government is often times not accordant with the provisions of our Constitution, especially at the central-government level. If so, I share this disquieting despair and quite understand why an increasing number of citizens choose to campaign for saner resolve, though in my opinion through destructive means. I believe their initiatives will create such interim instability within this country, that we shall assuredly become much vulnerable to further assault on our provincial and national sovereignties.
Canadians will increasingly continue to lose their influence over those issues that are local and private in nature, subsequent to the arrogation of a despotic, centralist authority. That has been the cause of most of the revolutions we have witnessed in the history of our race. Desperation and futility is a large motive.

"The Canadian Constitution Committee recognizes the grim consequence of such endeavour, and chooses to pursue a more reasonable and less detrimental approach. We choose to simply re-establish our orders of government under the provisions of the Constitution Act of 1867, and encourage the provinces to advance such agenda. We have formulated a revised 'proposed constitution,' germane to the original intent of our national architects and quite more deserving of your Office than what emanates from our current orders of government. I do hope you will find our positions quite reasonable and of some inspiration. (Please see enclosed) "I have vented long enough. I hope this letter finds you and yours in good health. Very kindest regards, (Signed) Neil E. Wilson, (chair) The Canadian Constitution Committee"

COMMENT (By R.G.): It is said that one short, personal letter has more influence on a Member of Parliament than a score of signatures on a petition. Indeed, a dozen or so short, reasonable but polite and yet unequivocal letters to our MP, MLA, Reeve or Mayor, would certainly trigger some thought, stocktaking and discussion among our public representatives. This course is one answer to the question: But what can I do? And the time to start 'doing' is TODAY!

Corrupting Influence of Party Politics!

The March 4th issue of the National Edition of REPORT news magazine featured an interview with Alliance MP Diane Ablonczy. The most penetrating questions raised came near the end of the interview. They were the following:
"Q: Did you support Bill C-36 (the anti-terrorism bill)?
"A: My first reaction to Bill C-36 was that it was a Trojan Horse. There were things in that bill that I believe could be very harmful to freedom of choice and thought in this country, to the rights we enjoy to associate freely, to hold beliefs and to act on those beliefs. And I continue to be deeply worried about that. The bill went through, and we approved the bill in spite of those strong reservations because it was, on balance, a movement toward addressing some of the gaping holes in Canada's security system. But I am very uneasy about the bill.
"Q: You voted for it then?
"A: I did, but on balance only.
"Q: Now, Bill C-36 contains a clause that ends freedom of speech on the Internet by subjecting the Internet to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The CHRC has already ruled that truth is not a defence, and I must say that I was appalled that all but four members of the Alliance that voted on C-36 voted in favour of this. And I've yet to see any kind of justification for larding a censorship bill in with an anti-terrorism bill. I wonder if you could explain why that in the past the Alliance has sought to split apart bills that (contain provisions of a radically different nature), and they have condemned the Liberals for attempting to get one thing done by doing something else, yet this was not attempted on Bill C-36. Or are you in favour of the Internet censorship provisions?
"A: No, as I've already said, I'm deeply troubled by the aspects of the bill that limit these kinds of freedoms. And also another very negative aspect is limiting citizens' access to information about the operations of their government. There are many repellent features of this bill, but there was also an urgency and overriding concern about public safety and about the need to be active and vigorous in attacking terrorism and the threat of terrorism. And so again it was a balancing act that was a very difficult one. There is a philosophical truism that if people are faced with a loss of freedom or a loss of personal safety and security, they almost invariably opt for the loss of freedom to protect personal safety and security."

COMMENT (By R.G.): Speaking about "philosophical truisms," Mrs. Ablonczy, a former teacher and lawyer, will recall the words of Benjamin Franklin, one of the authors of the American Declaration of Independence, who, speaking of freedom and security, said: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I'm afraid our Diane hardly fits the mould of Old Benjamin! Reread Mrs. Ablonczy's answer to the last question carefully. She says she viewed Bill C-36 as a Trojan Horse, as an instrument of the enemies of our fundamental rights and freedoms, but that she supported it "on balance," because there were "gaping holes in Canada's security system." Just how abrogating our rights and freedoms and adding the 'irrelevance of truth' to our 'human rights/judicial' system, strengthens our security system is hard to understand. Unless Ottawa views our own people as more dangerous than the terrorists! What Diane seems to really be saying is that she knows C-36 is a major threat to freedom of thought, freedom of association and freedom of speech of Canadians -- but that it was deemed politically correct by the Liberal Establishment, and the easy way out was to vote with the mob; yes, against the interests of her own Canadian people. Such sophistry!
Diane Ablonczy was a founding member of the Reform Party, a brilliant debater and Opposition critic in Parliament these past nine years, and now she's been reduced by the Ottawa Liberal Establishment, "on balance," to this act of betrayal of the long-term interests of her own constituency and country. This politically degenerative process that seems to afflict so many long-term federal politicians is known in the outback and hinterland of our country as "Ottawashing." This sad state of affairs certainly underlines the need for the addition of an Initiative Referendum & Recall measure to our present parliamentary system -- something along the lines of the system now in Switzerland.
In the meantime, I still have a lot or respect for the ability and potential of Diane Ablonczy. And if -- perhaps with a little divine help, not only in her own behalf but on the part of her friends and supporters -- she can again find her integrity and courage, I believe she could make an excellent future Cabinet Minister.

from month to month
Our Queen's Golden Jubilee

This coming summer Canadians will celebrate the 50th anniversary of Queen Elizabeth II's accession to the Throne. And for a full half-century she will have been our Queen - that's right, the Queen of Canada, as well as the Queen of a number of other Commonwealth countries. Therefore, it's appropriate that Canadians, including our Prime Minister and other political leaders and public figures are preparing to celebrate this Royal occasion. But of all public statements we've seen to date -- official and unofficial -- perhaps the most meaningful we've noticed was the following one by René le Clère of Montreal, published in the February 2nd National Post, under the caption, "The best system":

"I'm a Canadian Francophone, residing in Montreal since 1963, but originating from France. I am also a committed monarchist. Monarchy is stability, monarchy is human, monarchy is tradition, monarchy is grandeur, monarchy is the cement binding all Canadians. Let me be brief. The monarchy is working -- and well. It is the best policy."
Well said, Mr. le Clère.

Why Japan did not invade Hawaii
Christian News, a Lutheran journal published in New Haven, Missouri, USA, under the above caption published the following item in its Feb. 4, 2002 issue: "In 1960, Robert Menard was a commander aboard the USS Constellation when he was part of a meeting between United States Navy personnel and their counterparts in the Japanese Defense Forces. "Fifteen years had passed since VJ Day, most of those at the meeting were WWII veterans, and men who had fought each other to the death at sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in each other. "Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland U.S. forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast. "Commander Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander's face as he frankly answered the question. " 'You are right,' he told the Americans. 'We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand.' "
Today, that's probably why Uncle Sam, unlike the foolish Canadian Government, is not about to disarm its law-abiding citizenry.

Supremacy of the people

The National Post, Feb. 6, 2002, published an editorial under the above caption. Following are a few brief excerpts:
"… In the 20 years preceding the passage of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court overturned exactly one law -- a federal statute making it a crime for Indians to be drunk off-reserve. In the two decades since, the Court has struck down nearly 100. "Since 1982, the court has effectively banned capital punishment, eliminated abortion laws, ordered preferential treatment for 'historically disadvantaged groups' (mostly women and visible minorities) and upheld labour laws that require workers to finance their union leaders' political agenda. Homosexual rights, which were seven times rejected by the legislators who wrote the Charter, were 'read into' the document by the Supreme Court. In native land claim cases, the court has said tales told by native oral historians are to be given the same weight as land office records and historical scholarship.
"Traditionally, supreme courts are meant to be a check on the executive and legislative branches of government -- protector of minority rights from a dictatorship of the majority. But the poll numbers suggest widespread recognition that the court is conjuring new rights not contained in the Charter's text. ... "

The most attractive system for staffing the court would be to have a powerful, politically balanced, cross-party parliamentary committee to vet the Prime Minister's nominees. …"
I wonder if the NP editors have been reading the Canadian Constitution Committee's Draft Proposal for a Revised and Updated Canadian Constitution 2000 A.D.?

Supplementary Section

A Special Report on the Middle East Problem

Orthodox Jews Oppose Zionism and Israeli State

Introductory Note Because most of the newsmedia and governments throughout the nations once known as Christendom are either controlled or intimidated by an international brotherhood of extremely wealthy pro-Zionist individuals or groups, the peoples of Western Civilization today are largely dependent upon biased and politically-correct news and views of world events. And therefore our understanding and actions are sometimes, in reality, hostile to our own best interests and welfare, and to the welfare of our friends and others. Especially, is this true of so many Westerners' understanding and perspective on events this past century in the Middle East and Palestine. And as a result we now face the prospect of another world war, primarily the result of American financial and military support of the Zionist invasion and establishment of the Israeli state in the Palestinian homeland. This is why this Service in recent months has been attempting to at least lift the curtain a little on this part of the world and the danger we now face. I am indebted to the Christian News journal, published in New Haven, Missouri, for most of the information in this report on the heated controversy within Jewry itself over the legitimacy and validity of the Israeli state in Palestine. -Ron Gostick (Publisher)

The Feb. 18th issue of Christian News published the following

"Announcement by the Rabbinical Congress of Upstate New York"

"February 7, 2002 - According to the Torah, the Jews are forbidden to have a State, even a religious State. Therefore, all Rabbis and God-fearing Jews, since its inception have opposed Zionism in any form and all of its ensuing actions. "With pain and sorrow we will gather to protest against the Torah defying 'State of Israel,' specifically against their Leader the bloodthirsty, Sharon! Who is presently visiting President Bush. It is he who in defiance of the Torah desecrated the name of the Almighty by going on the holy mount proclaiming war against the Palestinian people. He thereby instigated and exploded an endless chain of murder and bloodshed of all people in the Holy Land. He is constantly fueling this war together with his atheist colleagues in the government of Israel.

"We also will gather to protest against the vicious police and acts of the Israeli government against religious Jewry. "We will protest the persecution and incarceration of rabbis who were defending holy grave sites. "We will further protest the assisting of the cold-blooded murder of the prominent Rabbi Samet for his defending religious principles in the holy city of Jerusalem. "We also ask the government of the U.S.A. to use all means available to them, to halt all these actions, to gain the release of the revered Rabbi Biton and bring to justice the murder of Rabbi Samet o.b.m. "We pray to the Almighty to free the land and the Jewish people with the forthcoming of Moshiach! (the Messiah).
"The demonstration will be held Thursday, February 7, 2002, (at) 17th St., Corner Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. "Close to 1,000 Orthodox Jewish Rabbis and Talmudical scholars from throughout the United States will participate. …"

Christian News, followed up the foregoing item with the following item by the Rabbinical Congress of Upstate New York:

"To Those Who May Wonder Why We Are Here Today"

February 7, 2002 --- Washington, D.C.
Questions and Answers Concerning Today's Protest Against Sharon and His Cabinet Meeting Today With Our Distinguished President George Bush"

"Q- What is the purpose of today's protest?
"A - We have two goals. One is local, the other global. First, we are demanding the release of Rabbi Daniel Biton, a prisoner of conscience, currently incarcerated by the Israeli government. Second, we are here to declare that the Israeli government itself and the Zionist ideology which it incarnates are in no way legitimate representatives of the Jewish people or of the Torah faith which is the sole basis of our very existence.

"Q - First things first, why was the Rabbi imprisoned?
"A - At a trial, where his only offense had been to engage in peaceful religious protest, he declared his opposition to the very existence of the Israeli state. For this 'political incorrect' dissent he was jailed.

"Q - Why do you describe this as a local problem?
"A - It is a problem of an individual's unjust suffering. Of course, this is a matter of grave importance. It deserves the immediate attention of those in the international community concerned with basic human rights' violations. However, despite the magnitude of the Rabbi's plight, he would be the first to admit that it is dwarfed by the far greater and pressing problem of the Zionist enterprise in its essence.

"Q - Why is this a pressing problem?
"A - Today, Zionism stands revealed before the Jewish people and, indeed, all mankind, as a failed enterprise. Zionism's founders (all Jews who had rejected their ancestral faith) claimed that it was going to solve the problem of Jewish exile and suffering. It would offer a safe haven for all of world Jewry. Over half a century later, it was proven itself incapable of the far less grandiose task of so much as protecting the Jews already living in the Holy Land.

"Q - But the state has survived, hasn't it?
"A - It is farcical to call a government that has subjected its citizens to five wars and endless suffering a desirable 'survival.' How much blood must be shed till Jewry shakes off the shackles of world Zionism's domination and begins to rethink this ideology's root assumptions?

"Q - What assumptions are you referring to?
"A - The core of Zionism thinking is the dogma, at the most a century old, that Jewish exile is manmade, that it is the result of the superior strength of the Roman army which destroyed the Temple and that it can be ended by military and political action. This reductionist misreading of Jewish history represented a break with two thousand years of Torah belief and tradition. Jews have always viewed their exile as a Divine punishment. They saw the sole means to their deliverance as repentance and good deeds. By casting the drama of Jewish history in materialist, this-worldly terms, Zionism was attacking the essence of the spiritual odyssey of the Torah nation. It was doomed to failure.

"Q - Why doomed?
"A - Because the Talmud and Midrash have foretold that physical attempts to end Jewish exile will result in ceaseless and horrible bloodshed. And, because it is simply metaphysically impossible for a rejection of Judaism, led by those who deny Torah, to lead and represent the Jewish people with any success.

"Q - Why, then, is Zionism so popular?
"A - After the terrible destruction of the Second World War, European Jewry had lost many of its great leaders. In addition, there was a sense of confusion that permeated many survivors. The non-Jewish world was anxious to make amends for its passivity during the Holocaust. Hence, the Zionist triumph in 1948. However, a dispassionate reading of Jewish history will yield the conclusion that, since its inception, Zionism was opposed by the overwhelming majority of Torah-observant and believing Jews.

"Q - Was this opposition caused solely by Zionist philosophy?
"A - No. In fact, it was the deeds of Zionists, both before they came to power and after they became a state, that revealed the true essence of this movement. The Israeli state has long warred on the practice of Judaism. It has violated the sanctity of Jewish graves for archeological studies, desecrated dead bodies by performing wholesale autopsies, maintained the moral decadence of mixed-sex armies ... the list is endless.

"Q - Surely, now though, the state is a fact. It could only disappear with great loss of Jewish life.
"A - Surely it only survives with great loss of Jewish life! We know what the state's existence has cost in blood and suffering. The price of its dismantling is an unknown. However, we trust that would the Jewish people sincerely shun the philosophy of Zionism, then a peaceful means would be found to dismantle its apparatus.

"Q - What is the global goal of today's protest?
"A - Beyond the short-term goal of freeing Rabbi Biton, we are committed to letting the world know that non-believers, even though they may call themselves 'Israel,' exhibit the Star of David and display menorahs, have no right to speak in the name of world Jewry. As Rav Saadya Gaon (882-942), post Talmudic, Babylonian leader of the Jewish people, said, 'We are only a nation by virtue of the Torah.' Any formulations of Judaism that reject Revelation at Sinai, are distortions of the faith that was handed down over four thousand years ago. Those not professing the truths of Sinai, while Jews (and probably themselves the victims of the age of heresy in which we live), are not and cannot be truthful representatives of Judaism.

"Q - Do you have any hope that your message will be heard?
"A - Today, more than ever before, the total failure of the Zionist mania is obvious. Peace plans have failed. The 'greatest' of right wingers, Ariel Sharon, has shown himself utterly incapable of solving anything. Daily the death toll mounts. All alternatives within the Zionist assumptions have been tried. People are willing to step beyond the old clichés and entertain new -- really old and traditional -- solutions. The cost of failing to rethink Zionism mounts every day.

"Q - If not Israel, what will be the focus of American and world Jewry?
"A - The focus of Jews throughout the centuries was the service of the Almighty via Torah and mitzvoth (good deeds). This was and is the only agenda of the Jewish people. By pursuing the imperative of righteousness, with quiet dignity, with the Creator's help, we may be worthy of inspiring and uplifting all men towards universal peace and G-d's service.

"Q - Is Zionism in contradiction with this task?
"A - Yes. It drags the Jewish people into endless conflicts with other people. It forces us into an aggressive involvement in war, political manoeuvering and pressure. These are not Jewish methods. In exile we are to accept our status and serve the Creator, while cultivating good will, honesty and friendly relations towards all. The haughty swagger and militarism of the Israeli state are not in keeping with the appropriate response to exile, nor with the basic pieties of a G-d focused, sincere and loving people.

"Q - So your program is ...
"A - To pray for the peaceful dismantling of the Israeli state, to encourage Jews the world over to sever their links to it, to proclaim before mankind that Judaism cannot be represented by heretics and to seek good relations with all individuals and nations."

COMMENT (by R.G.): The foregoing Q-&-A statement by the Rabbinical Congress of Upstate New York, is a most revealing view of the nature of the internal struggle going on within the ranks of world Jewry, between the adherents faithful to traditional Orthodox Judaism and the largely secular/atheist disciples of Theodor Herzel who in 1897 launched the political/terrorist movement known as Zionism. Which gives rise to a few thoughts:
President Bush leads the 'war against terrorism,' yet his most ardent support, both at home and abroad, is coming from the Zionist movement and its Israeli terrorist state!
It may be significant that the Zionist movement from its birth in eastern Europe, has been mainly made up of the Ashkenazic wing of world Jewry. These Ashkenazis, who comprise about 80% of world Jewry, are descendants of the Khazar kingdom that flourished in the Caspian and Black Sea area of southern Russia about twelve centuries ago. Judaism was accepted by its ruler as the state religion about the 8th century A.D. From an ethnic or genealogical standpoint the Khazar 'Jews' are of Tatar-Turko origin and mainly secularists or atheists, with no genetic roots connecting them with Biblical Israelites.
It was this Khazar wing of Jewry that in the past century also spawned the Bolshevik Revolution and spread of Communism. And so, today, we see the terrorist Zionist movement and the traditional, Orthodox, religious Jews, locked in a bitter internal struggle. Perhaps this is what the Apostle John saw in the distant future 'end time' when he wrote in Revelation 3:9: "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. …"

Bush Administration Acts Like Israeli's Puppet
The following column by the widely respected American journalist Charley Reese, is reprinted from Christian News.

My biggest disappointment in President George W. Bush has been in how he has allowed himself to be manipulated by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. He has followed the same failed policy that his predecessor did. That policy can be summed up as "the Israelis are always right, and the Palestinians are always wrong." That's a very convenient policy for politicians who don't want the powerful Israeli lobby on their case. But if the goal is peace, the policy is a failure. If the goal is to protect America's interests, the policy is a failure. If the goal is to bring stability to the Middle East, the policy is a failure. If the goal is to eliminate terrorism, the policy is a failure.
Now, when people pursue a policy that has not achieved the goals it was supposed to, there are three possible reasons. One, the people are stupid. I think we can eliminate that. Nobody in the White House is stupid. A second reason is that they are afraid to change the policy because of domestic political pressure. A third reason could be that their goals are not the ones they publicly espouse. I never thought I would feel sympathy for Yasser Arafat, but he's been put into an untenable position.

Imagine a football game.
Imagine that you take the coach away and lock him up in a room. Imagine that you shoot half his team. And then imagine how silly it sounds for you to demand of the coach that he win the game. Arafat is under house arrest. He can't walk outside without chipping his teeth on the muzzles of Israeli tanks. For weeks, no matter who did what, the Israelis have bombed and shelled the Palestinian Authority police stations -- along with their equipment and files. The Israelis have killed and injured numerous PA policemen. Yet Sharon continues to demand that Arafat stop terrorism, and no matter what Arafat says or what he does, Sharon scoffs at it. Now, to our international shame, the Bush Administration has adopted the same pathetic line. Like a flock of parrots, Bush and his people repeat whatever Sharon says. It's not just people in the Arab countries who see this sorry spectacle. People all over the world are wondering how it is that a little country like Israel can jerk the chain of a powerful nation like the United States.

A few facts: The Palestinians are right. The Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza is illegal. When the occupation ends, peace follows. As long as the occupation continues, so will the resistance. Sharon has no intention of ending the occupation or of negotiating in good faith. Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is a brutal record of human-rights violations, violations of the Geneva Accords and violations of United Nations Security Council resolutions. It ought to make every American angry that our politicians tell us U.N. Security Council resolutions are worth the lives of Americans to enforce against Iraq but are to be vetoed and spit upon when directed at Israel. Our policy is an insult to anyone who supports the United Nations, and, frankly, people in Europe are getting sick of it. Israel has hired two public-relations firms, in addition to its American lobby, because it is scared to death that Americans are going to wake up and see the connection between the Israel First policy and the attacks that occurred September ll. (End of Mr. Reese's column)

Main Section

Another peek at our Immigration mess

It's become obvious these past several years that our 'open-door' immigration policy is not only costing Canadians hundreds of millions of dollars annually, but has already made our country a haven for the deadbeats, criminals, terrorists and assorted undesirables of the world. A case or two in point:

Following, is an e-mail reproduction of a column in the Feb. 20th, 2002, Toronto Sun by Tom Godfrey, captioned "Cops rage because violent fugitives still here." "Toronto police are outraged that a violent fugitive who was deported from the U.S. for sex offences was granted refugee status after slipping into Canada. "Tafari Rennock, 23, of Jamaica, also known as Emil Anthony and Tafari Walker, was arrested by Toronto police last June for being in Canada illegally and turned over to immigration officials. "While in custody, Rennock filed a refugee claim which was accepted by an Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) last week, officers said yesterday. "Immigration spokesman Rejean Cantlon and IRB spokesman Dominique Forget refused comment on the case, citing confidentiality laws. "However, Forget noted, the immigration department has the authority to revoke someone's status and deport them if they've been convicted of serious crimes. "Police said Rennock was deported from the U.S. about two years ago because of his lengthy criminal record, which included convictions for sexual assault, burglary, drug trafficking, robberies, unlawful restraint and probation violations. …"

The following item, captioned "Man gets year in jail for firebombing synagogue," is from the National Post, Feb. 28, 2002. "Edmonton - A man who firebombed a synagogue was sentenced yesterday to a year in jail. Yousef Sandouga, 21, pleaded guilty to arson last year for tossing a Molotov cocktail at the Beth Shalom synagogue in Edmonton in 2000. He claimed he was frustrated by events in the Middle East and decided to act out against the Jewish community."

Paul Fromm, director of the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee, in a March lst e-mail comments on this case: "If truth is to be told, we'll find many organized Jewish groups -- the Canadian Jewish Congress, for instance -- among the strongest advocates of massive immigration and multiculturalism. "Many traditional Canadians have opposed this invasion of our country and our replacement as Europeans by a multicult hodge podge. Many have questioned whether wildly dissimilar groups can really live together peacefully. "Thus, we find the following item more than a little ironic.
An angry Muslim, furious because of the Middle East impasse, decides to toss a firebomb at an Edmonton synagogue. Yet, that's exactly what multicult means -- the importation of wildly diverse peoples who bring their rancorous hatreds with them."

Our May 2001 On Target report revealed part of the incredible story of Ahmed Ressam, a known terrorist, who spent two years in Montreal playing his role in planning international terror, without any action by our immigration and security forces. Finally, a year or more ago, U.S. security arrested Ressam as he left Vancouver en route to Los Angeles to blow up its airport. A recent Canada First Immigration Reform Committee, in an e-mail, said: "Algerian terrorist and al-Qaida operative Ahmed Ressam entered Canada on a forged Venezuelan passport. He claimed 'refugee' status. He admitted to terrorist activities in Algeria. Still, his lies and violent connections were not enough to merit his deportation. You see, we don't deport people to Algeria. We'd rather harbour the terrorists ourselves. "Although his 'refugee' claim was turned down and he was ordered removed, nobody actually bothered to effect his physical removal. Immigration authorities, still fighting the last (world) war, were too busy chasing down ancient Germans and East Europeans. Meanwhile, Ressam on a forged passport travelled for terrorist training in Afghanistan. He supported himself in Montreal by theft. When caught, you might think that the authorities would at last deport him. No, he was assessed a small fine and turned back on an unsuspecting Canadian society."

The following is from Ahmed Ressam's trial in the United States:

Q. During that four-year period you were in Montreal, did you have any jobs?
A. I worked only one week distributing advertising leaflets.

Q. How did you support yourself during that four-year period?
A. I lived on welfare and theft.

Q. What do you mean by "theft"?
A. I used to steal tourists, rob tourists. I used to go to hotels and find their suitcases and steal them when they're not paying attention.

Q. And what would you do with the contents of those suitcases?
A. I used to take the money, keep the money, and if there are passports, I would sell them, and if there are Visa credit cards, I would use them up, and if there were any traveler's checks, I would use them or sell them.

Q. Now, did you do this alone or with others?
A. Mostly with others.

Q. Approximately could you estimate how many times you did that during that four-year period in Montreal?
A. Maybe 30 to 40 times.

Q. Did you ever get arrested for these thefts?
A. Yes, four times, I believe.

Q. Were you ever convicted?
A. Yes, one time.

Q. Did you serve any jail time from that conviction?
A. No, but I paid a fine (After Jihad Training - Welcome 'Home' Ahmed!)

Q. Did you bring anything back to Canada with you from Afghanistan?
A. Yes.

Q. What did you bring?
A. I came with some chemical substances. I brought also a notebook that had instructions on how to put together explosives. I brought a sum of money.

Q. How much money did you bring back?
A. $12,000.

Q. Where did you get that from?
A. From Montaz. (leader of the Algerians at Jihad camp)

Q. Why did Al Montaz give you $12,000?
A. To take care of our affairs; first to get a house, to buy weapons.

Q. You mentioned you brought back chemicals; can you describe what you brought back?
A. Yes. Hexamine.

Q. Explain what hexamine is.
A. It is a substance used in the manufacture of explosives. It is a substance that is a booster that is used with explosives.

Q. What form is it in?
A. It is in the form of tablets, but you grind it and then it becomes like a white powder.

Q. Did you bring back any other chemicals?
A. Also glycol which is liquid.

Q. What is glycol used for?
A. It is also used in explosives.

Q. When you left Afghanistan in February 1999, where did you travel back to?
A. I went to Pakistan first. Then I went to Los Angeles in transit, and then took a plane from Los Angeles to Vancouver.

Q. Whom did you stay with in Vancouver?
A. Abdelmajid Dahoumane.

Q. Who was Abdelmajid Dahoumane?
A. He is an old friend.

Q. Can you tell us, from February of 1999 when you returned to Vancouver until December of 1999, where were you living?
A. I lived in Montreal.

Q. Did you ever travel outside of Montreal during that period?
A. I used to travel to Vancouver to take care of business.

Q. At that time were you legally in Canada?
A. No, illegal.

Q. What had happened to your political asylum claim?
A. It was put in my file and the file was closed.

Q. It was rejected?
A. Yes, it was rejected.

Q. Was there an immigration warrant issued for your arrest?
A. I heard about that later after I left. ... (Oh, We're So Safe Up Here In The Stupid Country ...)

Q. What do you need hand grenades for?
A. I might have some use for it during the operation.

Q. What kind of use would you need hand grenades for?
A. If we are going to carry out a robbery we would need it.

Q. What did you intend to use hand grenades for in a robbery?
A. If you engage the police, you would throw a hand grenade at them and run.

Q. You were willing to throw a live hand grenade at the police in Canada in order to get away?
A. Yes, I did; if I needed it, I would do it.

COMMENT: The foregoing portion of the Ahmed Ressam court case in the U.S. perhaps tells us more about our own Immigration Department's operation under the Chretien government than it tells us about Ressam. It not only confirms our warnings these past years - it's even worse than we thought it was! And Ottawa's response to this security problem is Bill C-36, which abrogates the ancient rights of all Canadians -- freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc. -- instead of targeting the enemies of Canada within our borders and the ones attempting to get in. Excuse us if at times we begin to wonder just whose side our politicians in Ottawa are really on!

Quote & Comment
Debunking native myths
The Dec. 12, 2002 National Post published an editorial under the above caption. Here are two excerpts:

"The abysmal state of Canada's aboriginal reserves reflects the failure of current Indian policy. Reserve-resident Indians comprise just 1.3/o (just over 400,000) of Canada's population, but consume about 5%" (about $5-billion; or roughly $l2,000 for every man, woman and child, or $48,000 annually for a reserve-family of four) "of all federal program spending. On reserves, that money has bought us 30% unemployment, widespread alcoholism and astonishing rates of suicide and domestic abuse. …"

"The spokesmen for Canada's Indians, the ones we see defending self-government on television and at academic conferences, are typically band leaders. Every year, they are collectively handed about $5-billion of taxpayer money to spend. Is it any wonder they guard their fiefdoms jealously. ... On reserves, a small group of Indians connected to the ruling aboriginal class by kind and connection prospers; while roughly the rank and file survive on public assistance. A court ruling this past month, absolves all on-reserve aboriginals of paying taxes. Which, of course, will primarily benefit the Chiefs who, with their families and connections already have far more than their share of public funds, and ensure continued poverty for rank-and-file aboriginal on-reserve families. And, of course, the ones this court ruling belt the hardest are the non-reserve working taxpayers who now have to foot the full load of public expenditures on this section of our population.

Opium crop blossoms again
The Globe and Mail, Jan. 25, 2002, ran a report captioned "Opium crop blossoms in void left by Taliban." Here are two short excerpts:

"Haji Mohammed Hasan holds his rusty knife above the gas flame, nodding his head in satisfaction as the black resin on it bubbles slightly. He then presses the blade against a steel plate, and checks to make sure the goo sticks a little as he pulls the knife away again. " 'Pure opium,' he says, holding it under a visitor's nose for verification. He places it back into a red pail packed with six kilograms of the raw drug. Mr. Hasan hopes that today the pail will fetch a better market rate than the 20,000 Pakistani rupees per kilogram -- about $530 - he's had to accept of late, but he's not optimistic. The realities of Afghanistan's opium business have changed, with prices in a free fall for more than a month.
"Under the Taliban regime, opium production ground to a near halt after leader Mullah Mohammed Omar banned farmers from growing the country's most lucrative cash crop. ... "Ever since the Taliban was ousted by the U.S.-led bombing campaign, opium cultivation has resumed with a fervour in the country that accounted for a staggering 75 per cent of worldwide production two years (decades?) ago. The result has been looser supply and lower prices. "
'The prices are so low. Everyone is growing poppies,' Mr. Hasan complained. 'The good thing is we are selling much more.' "

Three scandal-dogged ministers sacked

Finally, 2½, months ago, three federal ministers who were causing the government much embarrasment were removed from Cabinet. Alfonso Gagliana, under a cloud of outrageous cronyism and alleged corruption in his Public Works department, resigned as an MP and was immediately appointed and hustled off to Denmark as our Ambassador. Rather a blatant insult to the Danes! Maria Minna, another minister, alleged of awarding government contracts to her election campaign workers, was relieved of her International Co-operation ministry. Hedy Fry, the minister of multiculturalism, who wrongly accused residents of Prince George, B.C., last year of staging racist cross-burnings, was also dropped from the Cabinet. Now, if the Prime Minister would only drop himself from Cabinet for his long list of allegations of corruption, his housecleaning would be more impressive, and even Mr. Martin would be happy, not to mention a host of Canadian taxpayers. Sorry, Jean, another embarrasment!

The following item appeared in the Feb. 2 issue of the National Post:
"MONTREAL - A long-awaited fraud trial involving a Shawinigan businessman suspected of illegally obtaining federal grant money in Jean Cbretie''s riding is scheduled to begin today. "Mario Pepin is accused of illegally obtaining more than $150,000 through the Shawinigan-based Canadian Institute of Tourism and E-Commerce (CITEC), between June, 1998 and February, 2000. "He is accused of doing the same to obtain more than $290,000 through Le Groupe Forces, a local economic development agency, between Jan. 1, 1996 and March 1, 2000. "The two companies received more than $11.1-million in Human Resources Development Canada and other federal grants. The criminal charges were the focus of opposition questions in the House of Commons. "Mr. Pepin, 41, and fellow CITEC administrator Paul Lemire, who has already pleaded guilty in the case, are reported to have ties to the Liberal Party in Mr. Chretien's riding and to the Prime Minister. …"
Not to our PM ... again!

Festival funding a payoff: MPs

Following, are excerpts from a Feb. 2 issue of the Globe & Mail: "Opposition politicians charged yesterday that the federal government paid off Montreal's Just For Laughs festival for hiring a former senior aide to Prime Minister Jean Chretien in an attempt to buy his silence over the so-called Shawinigate affair. "They charged that the hiring of Jean Carle -- formerly Mr. Chretien's No. 2 aide and onetime senior vice-president of the Crown bank at the centre of the affair -- is linked to a sudden increase in funding last year for the festival. " 'How much are Canadian taxpayers going to have to shell out to keep the Prime Minister's friends quiet?' Canadian Alliance MP Cheryl Gallant demanded in the House of Commons. "Opposition politicians have alleged Mr. Chretien was in a conflict of interest when he lobbied the president of the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) for a $615,000 loan to the Auberge Grand-Mere, an inn owned by Mr. Chretien's friend Yvon Duhaime in his Shawinigan riding. "At the time, Mr. Duhaime had not paid Mr. Chretien for his shares in the neighbouring golf course. "Mr. Carle moved to his job as executive vice-president of Groupe Rozon, the firm of Just For Laughs founder Gilles Rozon, after working since 1998 as vice-president of the BDC. He had previously been director of operations in the Prime Minister's office.
"The Globe and Mail reported yesterday that federal agencies boosted their funding for Just For Laughs last year by a total of $575,000, to $1.7-million, shortly before and immediately after Mr. Carle was hired. "As well, Communications Canada paid $100,000 to set up a government kiosk at the festival for the first time. "The additional money included a $100,000 retroactive grant approved by Canadian Heritage Minister Sheila Copps in November, four months after the festival ended. That was in addition to a $175,000 increase approved earlier. …"